Doyle decried the use of “senseless social issues that distract and divide us,” and said the state needs to remain focused on the “growth agenda” he’s charted in his first four years as governor....

Doyle drew the only applause for either speaker when he said, unlike Green, he supports “a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices, even in cases of rape or incest,” He also said, “I do not agree with my opponent, I do not believe we should be carrying loaded guns in our pockets,” and decried efforts to “write discrimination into our constitution,” a reference to the ballot initiative to ban gay marriage and legal recognition of anything substantially similar to marriage for unmarried couples....

Doyle talked about stem cell research from a personal perspective, referencing his mother’s 30-year battle with Parkinson’s disease. Ruth Bachhuber Doyle died in May at the age of 89.

“To me it is unthinkable that we would stop the research that has the potential of having other people not have to suffer what my mother suffered,” he said.

So, yeah, damn these candidates with their manipulative social issues.

It is interesting that Doyle can get away with his anti-gun rights position in Wisc. In the states north and west of there, almost to the Pacific ocean, that statement about guns would lose the election for him, just on that one issue alone. This is part of why Wisc. is so interesting politically.

Even here in CO, we know that the Democrat, having been the Denver DA, is in favor of strong gun controls. But he isn't about to make any statements to that effect. Rather, he is running on the fact that he is a good Catholic, and is thus not as liberal as everyone thinks. If Ritter here in CO had said those things, he would be toast, instead of our likely next governor.

Fenris -- I would hope the Gov would allow each school district to choose whether to have Gun Safety classes. They're probably much in demand in, say, the Wisconsin Heights or Viroqua school districts that are in Farming Communities where hunting is common. Less demand in suburban Milwaukee. How many kids at West Bend East hunt?

When State Officials start telling local school districts what to do (invariably without paying for it), it usually means I have to grab my checkbook.

My point is that politicians who decry gun violence rarely apply the justification for Sex Ed programs to handgun safety. That tells me that "violence" is just a stalking horse for them. They have other unspoken reasons for banning guns.

"My point is that politicians who decry gun violence rarely apply the justification for Sex Ed programs to handgun safety. That tells me that "violence" is just a stalking horse for them. They have other unspoken reasons for banning guns."

You're asking for consistency from people that routinely castigate originalism, yet unhesitatingly put forth a quasi-originalist argument to constrain the meaning of the Second Amendment?

They have this new invention out now, it's called the holster, and it's purpose is to prevent just such an occurance. They come in various sizes, shapes, colors, and styles. You can get pocket holsters, ankle holsters, inside the wasteband holsters, outside the wasteband holsters, shoulder holsters, small of the back holsters...the list goes on and on.

Right. We know that the vast majority, if not all kids are going to be using firearms eventually, so it's only responsible to teach them gun safety.

I realize you *thought* you were being sarcastic, but the truth is that the vast majority of kids will, in fact, wind up using firearms eventually. 67% of adult Americans, and 86% of adult American men, have fired a gun at least once. Just because you're some loser leftie who shits his pants at the thought of self-defense doesn't mean the rest of the country is.

Case in point: a realtive of mine works DEA. One morning he left his firearm/holster sittng on the roof of his car as he drove to work. Yes, very bonehead mistake, but it happens - Murphy and Darwin compete.

Gun fell off. Some kid walking to school found it in the street. Fortunately, his parents had taught him to respect firearms and the basic safety tips. Instead of goofing off with the weapon and shooting someone, he carefully sheparded back to his house for his parents to deal with.

Revenant said..."So yes, it is only responsible to teach kids gun safety."

While I agree with you on this point, aren't you now vulnerable to the precise opposite point? If the significant percentage of Americans will use or encounter firearms in their lifetime merits educating children about firearms, even if their candy-ass liberal parents don't really approve of guns, isn't the case yet stronger that we should be teaching children how to have sex responsibly, not just abstinence?

I don't object to abstinence education, but I do object to abstinence only sex ed, which is what some conservatives want. I think the former is healthy, the latter is the ostrich-model of social policy.

If the significant percentage of Americans will use or encounter firearms in their lifetime merits educating children about firearms [...] isn't the case yet stronger that we should be teaching children how to have sex responsibly, not just abstinence?

When have I ever supported abstinence-only education? I'm all for decent sex ed in schools. Hell, I'm for the government handing out free condoms and birth control pills no-questions-asked. The fewer unwanted children the better.

But as for which is more important, I think gun safety is. Learning how to use a gun properly, while not rocket science, is a lot trickier than learning how to put on a condom, and the implications of incorrect gun handling are a lot worse than those of incorrect condom handling. After all, the by far most likely result of condom misuse is pregnancy, and abortion's legal.

Firearms aren't always in the right place at the right time, so there needs to be a degree of control over their proliferation.

If you say so. But given that the governments of the world have killed an order of magnitude more people than the private citizens of the world, I'm not inclined to worry that the *people* are too heavily armed. Guns are dangerous, but nowhere near as dangerous as government power is when not counterbalanced by an armed citizenry.

"Or, are they, like me, interested in the hijinks that happen when mcveigh wannabe militia crazies face off against spineless soccer mom rosie o'donnel groupies?

Very interesting, no doubt.

But since we've never once in the US had an incident that remotely resembles what you describe, don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to say "what happens" as if it's a well-known situation? I would think you should word that "interested in speculating about what might happen if..."

The RKBA-NRA crowd likes to cast their opponents as drones to the nomenklatura wannabe liberal elite whose agenda is possible only because their constituency is stupid, sheep-like, dependent on government, rapeably open to Propaganda and perhaps most importantly, has a collective historical memory a tad shorter than 4 weeks.

The MMM-handguncontrolinc crowd likes to paint their opponents as mean spirited backwater closet Harris & Klebold worshiping hick idiots with small penises whose desire to own weapons is rooted in a mixture of ignorance, arrogance and sexual inadequacy.

Clearly, the overwhelming majority of people who care about these issues are not idiots and do not fit the mold of the gun/antigun PR.

But, you know how politics work here, it's easier to have a cause if your opponents seem repulsive.

I think It’s entertaining in so far all ‘banned’ weapons are grandfathered in.. So, It’s not like the laws actually work or anything like that.

Reverant,

I agree in theory that if the people are actually running the government, (not the other way around) they should be armed to an equal degree….well that just doesn’t work out in a world of ICBM’s and Stinger missiles, now does it..

With Firearms, I see no reason why a taxpayer can’t own a fully automatic weapon such as say, an MG-42 with a 500 round belt, without going through a Kafkaesque labyrinth of paperwork and pigovian taxation.

It’s absurd to ask the whole population to give up liberties as to accommodate those who harm others in the process of breaking the law.

But, some people, I think, just shouldn’t have any guns.

To me, That includes most of the wannabe cops in the BATF…in all seriousness it would include people under the age of 18, people convicted of violent crimes, people with restraining orders on them, the Insane, the drug addicts and other riff-raff with a statistical inclination towards violence.

I really enjoyed reading your article. I found this as an informative and interesting post, so i think it is very useful and knowledgeable. I would like to thank you for the effort you have made in writing this article.